On-line version ISSN 1018-6441
In Skriflig (Online) vol.49 n.3 Cape Town 2015
Leierskap as bemagtigings funksie: Op weg na 'n nuwe paradigma vir plaaslike kerkleierskap in die een-en-twintigste eeu
Rob ElkingtonI, II, III; Darryl MeekinsIV; Jennifer M. BreenV; Suzanne S. MartinVI
IFaculty of Theology, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa
IIFaculty of Education, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Canada
IIIFaculty of Business and IT, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Canada
IVFaculty of Missiology, Summit University, United States
VGraduate School, Creighton University, Nebraska, United States
VIPrincipal Consultant, Birmingham, United States
Ministry leadership presents unanticipated challenges to those seeking to serve the church. Whilst formal theological programmes provide essential education in Christianity and ministry, they do not equip new ministry leaders to navigate the complex adaptive system that is 'The church'. Upon completion of a formal educational programme, new church leaders are expected to be a leader without having the benefit of ongoing support for their leadership development process. To address this gap, and with the use of Osmer's heuristic, this article presents a framework of leadership development that draws primary from the business literature and can be adapted to ministry. Given the rough terrain inherent in the 21st century church, the authors of this article hope that this work provides a framework that will increase leadership effectiveness, prolong leadership tenure, and empower church leaders to foster the Christian worldview both within and outside their flock. Firstly, this article introduces a new framework for leadership development in the 21st century church. Next, we articulate the model and directly apply it to church leadership. We discuss not only issues that currently exist in the church, but also propose interventions that could improve the functionality and effectiveness of the church. We conclude with a list of theory-based activities that, if undertaken, will equip church leaders to utilise the framework proposed in this article.
Kerkleierskap bied onverwagte uitdagings vir diegene wat tot die bediening toetree. Terwyl formele teologiese programme wel noodsaaklike opleiding in die Christelike godsdiens en teologie bied, word nuwe toetreders tot die bediening van die komplekse veranderende stelsel van 'die kerk' nie na behore toegerus om leiers in die kerk te wees nie. Na die voltooiing van 'n formele opleidingsprogram word van nuwe kerkleiers verwag om 'n leier te wees sonder die hulp van voortgesette ondersteuning vir hulle leierskapsontwikkelingsproses. Om hierdie gaping te oorbrug, bied hierdie artikel 'n raamwerk vir leierskapsontwikkeling. Hierdie raamwerk is hoofsaaklik uit besigheidsliteratuur ontwikkel, maar kan vir die bediening aangepas word. Aangesien die een-en-twintigste-eeuse kerk in 'n onstuimige wêreld moet oorleef, hoop die skrywers van hierdie artikel dat genoemde raamwerk leierskapsdoeltreffendheid sal verhoog, die duur van leierskap sal verleng en kerkleiers sal bemagtig om die Christelike wêreldbeskouing te bevorder, binne sowel as buite hulle gemeentes. Die artikel stel eerstens 'n nuwe raamwerk vir die ontwikkeling van leierskap in die een-en-twintigste-eeuse kerk voor. Vervolgens word die model ontleed en direk op die kerklike leierskap toegepas. Die bespreking handel nie net oor kwessies wat tans in die kerk bestaan nie, maar bemiddelings word ook voorgestel om die funksionaliteit en doeltreffendheid van die kerk te verbeter. Ter afsluiting volg 'n lys teoreties-gebaseerde aktiwiteite wat, indien dit uitgevoer word, kerkleiers sal toerus om die voorgestelde raamwerk effektief te gebruik.
Towards a new framework of leadership in the 21st century church
This article is part of a Festschrift to our honoured friend and mentor, Prof. George Lotter. Two of the authors of this article enjoyed mentorship and friendship from Prof. Lotter and so we are deeply grateful to him for the time and work he selflessly invested in our lives. It is under this theme of selfless investment in education and mentorship to develop leaders that we present this article. Prof. Lotter was himself a pastor in his early days and speaks often of the many leadership lessons he learned in situ as well as the many leadership challenges he felt he was not equipped to face.
Perhaps it was this seeming deficit in leadership preparation and the challenges faced in a leadership position that moved Prof. Lotter to focus in more recent times upon mentorship and leadership development through e-mentorship (Koch & Van Brakel 2010; Lotter 2008). Leadership theory and the function of leadership within the church have always been critical to the health and resilience of the church. As far back as 1912 Roland Allen (2006) published his watershed, Missionary methods: St. Paul's or ours. This work is significant because in it Allen suggests that there is something 'organismic' and living about the church; that it is a living system capable of spontaneous growth and health. This idea was revolutionary at the time because Allen suggested that Christian churches, imbued with the Holy Spirit, inherently possessed the capacity to thrive, without the continuing ongoing paternalistic oversight of the western missionary. Allen (2006) used the apostle Paul and his missionary work in the four provinces of Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia as his paradigm. He states:
Before 47 A.D. there were no churches in these provinces; in 57 A.D. St. Paul could speak as if his work there was done, and could plan extensive tours into the far West without anxiety lest the Churches which he had founded might perish in his absence for want of guidance and support. (p. 3)
It is important to understand the historical context of Allen's words at the height of British missionary triumphalism and the belief within mission circles that the world needed not only the gospel that the West was sharing, but also the culture of the West. Thus missionaries felt that whilst peoples in foreign lands were accepting the gospel, acculturating them was a far bigger and long-term undertaking. To quoteAllen (2006):
We have long accustomed ourselves to accept it as an axiom of missionary work that converts in a new country must be submitted to a very long probation and training, extending over generations, before they can be expected to stand alone. (p. 4)
We cite Allen here because we believe it is possible that the church in the West may have inadvertently reverted once again to an acculturation model of church life and gospel preaching in which the leadership of the church may lose sight of the organismic nature of the body of Christ and the power with which Christians are imbued to accomplish the mission of God, the missio Dei. The 21st century church in the West is no longer the mainstream, Christendom is crumbling (Frost 2007) and the church is now exiled to the margins as a people on mission in a strange and foreign land. In this article the authors suggest a new model of church leadership that we believe is anchored in the principles of Allen's landmark work, and behind that, the New Testament conception of church leadership. We wonder if it is possible that the notion of leadership within Christendom has bottlenecked within the office of pastor much like church plants in Allen's day bottlenecked in the leadership of the missionary. It may be possible that if the church is on mission the same conditions for church planting, church health, and thus church leadership, prevail as much today as they did in the time of Allen and in the time of Paul the apostle.
Methodology for this article: Osmer's heuristic
This article seeks to unpack the question of church leadership by presenting a model in which the church leadership is seen as the 'enabling function' (Booysen 2014) within the church. To accomplish this task, we employ Osmer's heuristic as our methodology. We used Osmer because we now face a new context of 'intellectual pluralism, the reality of multiple and, often competing paradigms within a single field' (Osmer 2010:2).
In the face of this intellectual pluralism, contemporary practical theology researchers have employed a paradigm that emerged from the advent of modernity - a paradigm that Osmer (2010:4) labels 'reflective practice'. Osmer (2008:4) expands upon the nature and process of this 'reflective practice' in his book, Practical theology: An introduction, in which he sees the core of this reflective practice in four questions. In Osmer (2010) these questions are formulated as follows:
Descriptive-empirical: What is happening? Gathering information to better understand particular episodes, situations or contexts. This is discussed in the section: Are Leadership Development and Mentoring Paradigms Needed to Support Missional Leadership as Enabling Function?
Interpretive: Why is this happening? Entering into dialogue with the social sciences to interpret and explain why certain actions and patterns are taking place. This is reviewed in the section:
Normative: What Should Be Happening? Raising normative questions from the perspectives of theology, ethics, and other fields.
Pragmatic: How do we get there? Forming an action plan and undertaking specific responses that seek to shape the episode, situation, or context in desirable directions. (p. 3)
As Osmer (2010:3) points out, his description of these four tasks is not original. Perhaps what is original is the way in which Osmer has structured these four elements together and then weighted these four tasks with the notion of 'reflective equilibrium' (Osmer 2010:7). This 'reflective equilibrium' is valuable because it assumes that practical theology, like other fields today, is highly pluralistic, and yet, within this pluralism there are tasks or elements that are held in common, even if they are carried out in different ways. Osmer's heuristic is extremely helpful to the four authors who crafted this article, since all arrived with their own individual research background, and approach to research, within the postmodern context of practical theological reflection. Osmer's approach facilitates great diversity of approach within his broader framework. We begin by probing the question of church leadership within the 21st century under Osmer's (2008:4) lens of: 'Descriptive empirical: What is going on?'
What is happening? We live in a challenging context where leadership development and mentoring paradigms are needed to support missional leadership as an enabling function
Shepherds of Christ's flock are to lead his flock (Prime & Begg 2004:217). Stetzer and Bird (2010:16) indicates that in the US church up to 93% of pastors see leadership development as critical for the church. However, they are less convinced of their ability to help in developing such leaders - only 52% strongly agreed that the church is doing well in this area. The question, though, is what this leadership profile in ministry constitutes and how it is developed (Engstrom 1976:121) within the life of the leader.
The preeminent question of whether leaders are born or made affects the notion of leadership within the local church too. If leaders are not in fact born, but made, then the question is what processes, context, and practices facilitate this type of leadership development in the 21st century church in such a way to empower leaders to view themselves as a piece of the whole and yet also dependent upon the whole. Sanders (1984:27) suggests that leadership is influence; something that great leadership scholars like Northouse (2013:7) affirm.
The new context of the 21st century affects leadership development because an awareness of the desired outcome of the process is essential in order to effectively design the leadership development process to accomplish missional leadership as an enabling function within the local church. Whilst it appears that business organisations are committed to expending resources on leadership and talent development within their ranks, can the same be said for theological training institutions and churches? This question is germane at this juncture in history due to two key factors, namely that the church in the West is in decline (Elkington 2011) and that pastors are leaving the vocational ministry at an alarming rate (Elkington & Lotter 2013).
The traditional modality of preparing people for vocational ministry seems to have fallen afoul of the 21st century's rapid pace of change. Osei-Mensah (1990:08) points out that there is a need for pastors to be 'omnicompetent' in today's world. Yet how pastors receive their training, and indeed, what they are trained to know and do will greatly influence their ability to be omnicompetent. There appears to be an increasing uncertainty within the realm of theological education as to what paradigm is the most effective in the 21st century. Banks (1999:04) suggests that theological education is in part ... going through culture shock and, in part, is undergoing a painful transition'.
Part of this transition is that institutions are wrestling with the ongoing debate concerning the balance between orthodoxy and orthopraxy in their curricula. It would seem that, more than ever before, not only should people in vocational ministry be theologically adept, they also need to have incredible leadership capacity to navigate the complexity of a globalised world, a context in which leaders require both a skillset and mindset to successfully navigate what has come to be known as vu jádè, the opposite of dèjá vu (Day & Harrison 2007). In vu jádè, leaders realise, 'I've never been here before, I have no idea where I am, and I have no idea who can help me.' In a post-Christendom era a different type of leadership is called for, a leadership that is not seen as a type of autocratic top down CEO, but as a servant, leader, shepherd who serves to equip the body to accomplish the work of the ministry, the missio Dei.
In recent social history, the so-called 'high powered' executive was the model most sought after in leadership (Roodt et al. 2009:290). However, this had mixed results and the trend seems to be shifting away from this line of thinking. Roodt et al. (2009:294) use the term 'toxic leadership' to describe this prototype of so-called leader who was stereotypically domineering, intimidating and usually male. In contradistinction to this gaining increasing prominence is a distributed leadership profile, in which leadership resides in the processes of the many, rather than the personal capital of any particular key individual (Day & Harrison 2007) resulting in a more integrative approach.
In specifically Christian contexts, as well as other contexts, this distributed leadership concept is sometimes called 'servant leadership' (Williams 1994:4) and 'leader-follower' (April, Macdonald & Vriesendorp 2008:27). Additionally, leadership styles vary across cultures (Plueddemann 2009:25), which adds to the challenge of a leadership development program in a multicultural setting. It is important to train pastors to critique their own cultures so that they may determine what they should attempt to lead people to and from (Van der Walt 2006:12). But even more than this, they should be able to critique those elements within the culturally accepted mores of leadership philosophy that work against a robust biblical view of leadership as enabling function rather than an autocratic CEO.
'True leadership requires development' (Williams & McKibben 1994:161) is a bold statement. What exactly is meant by 'development' is the key thought here. In his interesting discourse, Williams mentions how the enlightenment period and an emphasis on 'getting the job done' have robbed modern society of well-mentored leaders. We also have to be alert to the leadership philosophy of those who do take the time to mentor protégés. Mentors need to be selected because they view leadership as missional and effective leadership as an 'enabling function', rather than a successful CEO (this article will later explore how Paul the apostle shows this in a biblical model). However, there does seem to be a pendulum shift from that type of thinking in both business and theological training in more recent times. Williams' writing is from the mid-nineties and many of his observations appear outdated now. He (Williams & McKibben 1994) is accurate, however, when he states:
Apprenticing was the original Christian model of leadership development. Christ instructed and developed his disciples according to that model. Paul worked with Timothy and Titus the same way. Apprenticing is a time-consuming and sometimes painful process, but usually a rewarding one for teacher and student alike. (p. 186)
In the new realm of vu jádè, ministry leaders need to learn how to collectively participate in leadership processes (Day & Harrison 2007) since the complexity of a globalised arena might quickly overwhelm the lone heroic leader. Post-heroic missional leadership as an enabling function better fits the Ephesians 4:1-16 model and dovetails with the modern world of hypercomplexity in which the system is much stronger as the sum of the parts than each part simply functioning on its own.
Why is this happening? Is there a lack of mentorship and training due to philosophical differences or resource incapacity?
It is difficult to find any strong body of literature outlining a cogent leadership development practice for pastors, either precareer training or mid-career development. One study (McKenna, Yost & Boyd 2007) attempts to understand the effect of adversity and life circumstances upon the in situ leadership learning of pastors. In commenting on the urgent need to develop Christian leadership, and to develop a reflexive and adaptive creative Christian leadership to function effectively in the 21st century milieu, Tilstra, Freed and Baumgartner (2011) state that 'Christian leaders are faced with increasingly complex social contexts for which their training is not preparing them.'
It seems that there is a growing awareness that whilst Ministry Training Institutes (MTIs) are training people for orthodox ministry, they are not equipping people for orthopraxy leadership in a highly complex environment. Is it possible that MTIs believe that if they train for orthodoxy, somehow orthopraxy naturally follows? Or is it simply that the MTIs have not had the capacity to develop a lively and robust leadership development track as a viable part of the training regimen?
It is hard to grasp why it is that extensive leadership development is not occurring within MTI's and in situ in ministry contexts in an ongoing way. One of the strongest philosophical statements against formal leadership curricula within MTIs is voiced by Huizing (2011) when he suggests that the church not draw from the wide range of leadership research available, but rather develops a leadership philosophy that is more ecclesial in orientation and that is rooted in discipleship as the primary mechanism of leadership development.
An example of this methodology is the work, Leadership essentials (Ogden & Meyer 2007), in which in situ leadership development can occur as a discipleship process. Whilst we certainly do not disagree with Huizing or Ogden and Meyer, it is more a matter of degree and extent rather than philosophy. In other words, it seems essential that foundational leadership theory pedagogy be developed at the Ministry Training Institute level to inform ministry leaders in a prefatory fashion concerning the very real complexities, ambiguities and challenges they will face in the 'real' world.
Most of all, MTIs and local churches need to help emerging leadership understand the range of leadership theory that exists. They also need to equip them with a clear understanding of what it means to be a missional leader, to serve as an enabling function for the spontaneous expansion of the church by freeing the system to accomplish the mission of God within the bounds of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. They also need to obtain a strong and grounded connection to the delimiters of administration, bureaucracy and necessary policy.
It would appear, then, that the major reason this is happening, i.e. a lack of substantial leadership development at MTIs, is due to a philosophical belief that discipleship may be adequate to prepare leaders and that the church must use only Christian theories of leadership to develop Christian leaders.
A lack of training and mentorship
A primary focus of this article concerns the processes used when actually going about the task of raising leaders and equipping them for leadership. But, equally vexing is the societal assumption that persons are qualified to lead a ministry simply because they have completed a particular course of study. Notwithstanding certain biblical assertions of whom is qualified to be considered a leader, further study must be done as to what steps must be taken before this is recognised. If it can be demonstrated that completion of a course-based program of study is insufficient or the courses themselves may be the wrong kind for the desired objective, then we are presented with a harmful reality. We must concede then that it is possible that several church and nonprofit leaders deemed to be qualified for the task may not be. If weak leadership is offered and substandard approaches adopted, the follow-on impact can lead to disaster and disillusionment. That would be a situation we can ill afford. And yet, that is the situation we seem to now face with three pastors a day leaving the ministry in North America (Elkington 2013).
Mentoring has often been seen (Bérard 2013:118) as the key to helping develop leadership competencies that have real-world value, but how mentors are selected and what function they are expected to perform is a subject of debate. Veteran leaders are often automatically given mentor status by virtue of their experience. Yet some experienced folk seem able to inspire their protégés whilst others seem to do just the opposite.
The other question that needs to be interjected here is what worldview these veteran mentors do bring to the table? If they imbibe a Christendom acculturation model, then it is clear that this is the philosophy with which they will mentor their protégés. Where do we find missional, veteran, leaders who are willing to mentor emerging leadership? Added to this barrage of questions is yet another question of great importance: 'What exactly is a mentor and what is the person supposed to do?' How and why is this process important in theological education and leadership development? To qualify the last question, especially as it relates to the church on mission with God, the church as a complex adaptive system imbued with power by the Holy Spirit and able to accomplish the mission for which it is designed when released to do so.
Biehl (1996:19) offers a simple but compelling definition: 'mentoring is a lifelong relationship, in which a mentor helps a protégé develop his or her God-given potential'. Essentially it is a process where a person with experience, skills and training in a specific area offers to assist another (usually younger or less experienced) person in their development. Mentoring of some kind is a common practice in many for and not-for profit organisations and it is a time consuming process. Perhaps it is in the process of trying to put in practice the theory whilst managing the bottom line of the institute where many great intentions die (Naude 2004:36). When this pressure is placed upon the leadership of a local church with an already overloaded calendar, it is easy to see why the process is short-circuited.
If leadership were seen as missional and thus as an enabling function:
• Would the calendar seem overloaded if every part of the local church, the system, was doing its work as designed?
• Would mentorship of the protégé be that taxing if the focus of mentorship was to prepare that individual for the crucible moments of leadership with a humble realisation that their role as part of the leadership team and part of the whole system is to serve as the enabling function between complex adaptive system and administrative or policy processes?
• Would mentorship of an emerging leader be that difficult if the system was designed to see equipping for ministry (Eph 4) as the role of missional leadership, as the essence of an enabling function, as the summum bonum of leadership?
Whilst methods of theological education continue to morph to make it more accessible to students (Burton 1998), this iteration of educational delivery may make this process even more complicated. It is quite a different prospect to mentor by extension using virtual modalities, although this is an increasing field of study (Lotter 2008). Essentially one must have as a core value a desire to mentor the next generation of leadership. If it becomes a series of check lists and 'must-do' meetings, then the goals will never be realised. If it is more organic and systemic in orientation, then many are responsible for the mentorship process and mentorship is part of the system's self-generation.
Fortunately, there is theoretical support for alternative methods of providing mentoring experiences that can be quite fruitful (Higgins, Chandler & Kram 2005). They suggest the use of e-mentoring. Through a thorough review of existing e-mentoring programmes, they cite evidence that protégés received benefits such as increased support, professional friendships, networks, personal development, confidence, inspiration, contact with role models, and ideas pertaining to work and life balance. Though these authors share caution in generalising the results of this research, it seems evident that the adoption of e-mentoring in the 21st century church could vastly accelerate the development of leaders and support them whilst they deploy leadership strategies within the local church.
Not only can mentoring be offered through emerging technology by mentors and their protégés, it can also be utilised in a much broader form - through the development of mentoring networks (Higgins et al. 2005). Drawn from social networking theory, mentoring networks allow emerging leaders to make meaningful connections across boundaries and over multiple contexts, thus enriching the learning experience. Leaders can tap knowledge at the local and network level, creating a knowledge sharing system, whereby not only protégés are receiving information, they are also offering it. Thus, mentoring networks tend to exist for longer periods of time, allowing for deeper and more meaningful interactions for all.
Why is mentoring in theological training so essential? As with other studies in the Humanities, students deal with highly theoretical ideas in the classroom (hermeneutics and source criticism, for example) but are forced to deal with highly practical realities in the real world (helping a new Christian learn how to study the Bible). West, from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, speaks to this very issue when he states 'we believe that facilitating on-going contact between students and local communities so that they can work with ordinary Bible readers is a key component of our Biblical Studies pedagogy' (West 2004:74). This facilitation takes great skill best learned from an experienced and learned mentor.
A diagram of the model is presented as Figure 1: 'A model of church leadership as enabling function'. This model is explained throughout this article by first discussing the missional community, and the missional leadership after which the article discusses the type of leadership training and mentorship rooted in a hermeneutic that accentuates the importance and practical relevance of the trinitarian Godhead. This trinitarian perspective is one that demonstrates the communal nature of our God and thus how this reality ought to inform our dealings with the 'other'. Thus, an overall understanding of the biblical ideology that is seen within the Old and New Testaments might be required to produce leaders who view themselves as the enabling function within the organism known as the church. After the discussion of mentorship and leadership training, suggestions on how the model functions within a local church are presented to the reader. In the final section of this article, the authors present a range of areas for further research that arise from the concepts presented in this article.
What ought to be happening? A new focus in ministry leadership preparation
The question of leadership within the local church (Herrington, Bonem & Furr 2000:1-15) is paramount to any shift of western evangelical churches. If we wish to move away from the Christendom paradigm, where the church is self-absorbed and driven to acculturate, toward the missional paradigm, where the church is Spirit-empowered and driven to transcend culture by fulfilling the missio Dei, dramatic changes are required in both the perception of leadership and the preparation of leadership. In order to facilitate this change towards a missional leadership paradigm, the leader will need to adopt a systems (Rendle 2002 49-75; Senge 2006:341-403) perspective that sees the church as a living organism. The church is thus not perceived as a static entity that is unaffected by both the external environment and internal health mechanisms. This systems or 'church as organism' perspective is vital to the 'enabling function' type leadership because the move from Christendom church to missional church (Hirsch 2006:217-241) will move through liminality to greater cohesion in the form of communitas when the system is allowed to self-maintain and self-generate.
When leadership functions, as pictured in Figure 1 ('A model of church leadership as enabling function'), to enable the system to fulfil its purpose, self-maintenance and the accomplishment of the missio Dei [mission of God] can occur. We might refer to this type of systems sensitive leadership as 'missional leadership' since it exists to accomplish the missio Dei by serving as the enabling function between the administrative dimensions of church life and the systemic elements of the local church.
Perhaps one of the most helpful treatises on the nature of leadership required for this type of systems sensitive enabling leadership is MacIlvaine's (2009) dissertation. In this dissertation, MacIlvaine presents a clear thesis in which he states (MacIlvaine 2009:5-6): 'I initially thought that senior leaders initiating missional change did it in a conventional way: set down a strategic plan, recruit leaders and cast vision.'
On the contrary, the most important contributions in the literature suggested that missional change is quirky, nonlinear, and generally precipitated by a crisis. Whilst the 'crisis-might-lead-to-missional-change' theme usually shows up in missional texts, few authors seem to connect the dots that crisis is most likely the key that God uses to spark missional change.
Frost (2007:217-241) has developed an extremely helpful overview of the crisis catalyst in missional momentum, which he terms 'liminality'. It seems (MacIlvaine 2009:6-9) that crisis, or liminality is both imperative and invaluable for the church leadership to move (Rendle 2002:27-47) from a Christendom model of success driven paradigms over to much more of an enabling function or missional paradigm. Of course, the metrics for success in this type of enabling function or missional paradigm are much different to the metrics of success in the Christendom model, and the church needs to be sensitised to, and made ready for this change in metrics. Health and strength of the system and its capacity to self-maintain and function as a community on mission could be a better indicator of successful leadership than the normal indicators of size and wealth. This type of enabling function leadership or missional leadership requires great humility on the part of the leader who must self-conceive as a part of the whole, with the role of support, service, and protection.
The transition from the Christendom model to the missional model will require a crucible event. MacIlvaine (2009:30-39) presents an excellent overview of the 'crucible' model of leadership. In this model, the leader is broken, shaped and prepared for leadership through the crucible of crisis. MacIlvaine (2009:29-32) shows how this crucible theory has become a major leadership theory amongst secular leadership theorists. He also gives biblical examples of the crucible model of leadership preparation and leadership function, as well as examples from church history.
The shift from the Christendom model of pastoral leadership to the post-Christendom model of missional leadership is so radical, that for those ensnared in the former (Christendom) it will often take nothing short of some form of crisis (Kotter 1996:30-66; MacIlvaine 2009:39-48) to release the leader to change paradigms. The missional leadership paradigm is essential to the transition (Bridges 2009:1-10) of the Evangelical church in North America and the West from its current Christendom model to the missional model. Roxburgh and Romanuk (2006:12) express the distinction between the Christendom leadership paradigm and the missional leadership paradigm in Table 1 ('Operating models of leadership'). Please note how much of the missional leadership paradigm takes on an 'enabling function' role as opposed to a directive and autocratic role.
The leadership that embarks on accomplishing 'mission with' by enabling missional community, will apply all of the characteristics of the right hand side of Table 1:1. These 'missional' qualities reflect the leaders' belief that the church is an organism, and thus a complex adaptive system (Jost 2003:69-88; Lucas 2004:1-4). Within a complex adaptive system, collaboration is most highly valued as opposed to cooperation (Bellinger 2004). Cooperation will become self-defeating, whilst collaboration gives freedom of contribution to all parts of the organism that in turn contributes to the health of the organism; in this case, the church, as per Ephesians 4:1-13. Collaboration in this model is the essence of the 'enabling function' type of leadership presented in Figure 1 ('A model of church leadership as enabling function') earlier in this article.
Once the crucible moment in leadership is encountered and leaders begin to view themselves as part of the whole and intrinsically dependent upon the whole, the local church, these 'missional leaders' who understand that the missional community is a complex adaptive system, will naturally (Lichtenstein et al. 2006:2-12) gravitate towards a servant leader or relational (Greenleaf 2004:1-7) and non-hierarchical (Spears & Lawrence 2004:9-24) approach to ministry leadership. Lundy's (2002:1-232) work on servant leadership is also helpful when reflecting on missional leadership. Whilst there is a plethora of books and journal articles discussing a wide range of leadership paradigms and leadership styles, the missional leader is well served by an approach (Fleming 2004:11-193) that supports and strengthens the notion of the missional community as a complex adaptive system. The missional leader can strengthen (Brady & Woodward 2005: xi-xiv) personal leadership qualities by reading and absorbing the many diverse perspectives on leadership theory and leadership practice. However, the missional leader who is seeking to accomplish the missio Dei will look to leadership development with a view (Fleming 2004:11-18) to how those enhanced leadership qualities strengthen the rest of the community in their call to accomplish the mission of God. The missional leader will thus develop leadership acuity with a view to humbly facilitating the effective function and freedom of the local church as a complex adaptive system, bounded by orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and in effective relationship with the administrative, policy and bureaucratic requirements of the church as a living organism.
In the following section Figure 1 ('A model of church leadership as an enabling function') will be discussed.
A brief explanation of the model
The reader will note some of the key aspects of the model presented in Figure 1, as follows.
The leadership serves as enabling function by upholding the administrative, bureaucratic, and policy dimensions of church life. These dimensions ensure a healthy structure as well as ethical and legal compliance. This model also gives freedom to the members of the body to accomplish the mission of God and the ministry of the local church according to their giftedness, talents, and culture.
This model is bounded by orthodoxy (sound doctrine) and orthopraxy (sound function). This means that within the core tenets of the faith and within acceptable and agreed upon church practice, there is a great deal of freedom for members of the church to be a church accomplishing the mission of God as a community of God.
The leadership of the local church supports the ministry of the local church by serving to strengthen and support the health of each believer who comprises part of the complex adaptive system that forms that particular local church.
In this model, the local church is seen as a complex adaptive system. 'A system is always taken to refer to a set of elements joined together to make a complex whole' (Chapman 2002:29). Chapman (2002) suggests that within the systems thinking exists of three types or categories of systems:
Natural systems. Studied by biologists and ecologists, amongst others. Examples include the human body, frogs, forests and catchment areas.
Engineered or design systems. These are artifacts that are planned to exhibit some desirable emergent properties under a range of environmental conditions. Some examples of engineered or design systems include a motor vehicle, a computer and nuclear power stations.
Purposeful or human activity systems. All institutions and organizations fall into this area. Some examples of purposeful or human activity systems include churches, schools, prisons, and hospitals. (p. 29)
In the model presented above, the local church constitutes a complex adaptive system. When thinking of the local church, it is helpful to note that Bellinger (2004) defines a system as an entity where all facets are intertwined and rely upon each other in order for the entity to survive. The key emphasis here is one of mutual benefit in that something is occurring between the parts, over time, which maintains the system. For the analogy of the local church, something must be occurring between the different parts to ensure that the system is self-maintaining. Leadership can either function to support this systems wide self-maintenance and growth, or it can actually function in a way that inhibits self-maintenance and growth through a bottlenecking approach to leadership that concentrates power and impedes critical administrative and communication processes of the church body.
This systemic, mutual interaction of the many different parts within the local church for the maintenance and strength of the system as well as the accomplishment of the mission for which the local church was designed, seems to be the point of many New Testament passages concerning the local church; passages such as Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 2:19-22; 4:1-16, Philippians 1:27-30, Colossians 1:18. When the system is healthy and functioning well in maintaining itself, the missio Dei is accomplished. An example of mission emerging from a healthy system can be found in 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10; 3:6-412 (Kistemaker 1996 52-54).
We propose that Paul's letters to the churches at Ephesus and Corinth (Eph 4 and 1 Cor 12) can provide a window into the kind of leadership needed to serve the church. It is critical to note that Paul writes to the whole church in each letter, not a 'leader' or even group of leaders. He addresses issues that we typically would consider 'leadership issues' including communication, conflict, roles and functions. As a living breathing organism, the Early Church was emerging in homes and diverse communities, adapting to an environment marked by constant challenge, change and uncertainty.
One of Paul's primary concerns is the unity of the church. In Ephesians 4:1-2 he describes a 'worthy life' as one that is 'eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit'. He exhorts them to 'make every effort to maintain this unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace' (Eph 4:3). Continuing the theme of unity he writes in 4:4-6, 'There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God.' Paul provides instruction on how to stay together, instructing these local groups to live in unity within a context of diversity, in terms of gifts and roles. Paul insists on unity even though the old lines were blurring between Jews and Greeks, slave and free. He also affirms that every single member has been graced with gifts from the Spirit. The gifts are for the common good of the whole, not for self-promotion or leverage within the church. There is not a hierarchy of gifts, nor does there appear to be a hierarchy of leaders within the leadership process. Using the metaphor of the body, Paul instructs them to function interdependently, or towards the ultimate purpose (προς τον καταρτισμον) (Walvoord & Zuck 1985:635) with each member participating in ministry, naming various roles including apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). The different gifts work together to build up the whole body in Christ - the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and builds itself in love. This is one of the most powerful metaphors of unity and diversified leadership that we find in the Scripture and one that is discussed in more detail later. Suffice to say that ministry is a shared responsibility of all members not just a few or designated clergy. This explicit sharing of responsibility for the work of the church is a more complex, organisational construct for understanding and practicing leadership.
The approach that Paul presents differs from traditional leadership approaches, where exerting personal charisma or influence over the group is the primary approach to accomplish the leader's goal (Conger 1989). This is a radical departure from the command and control paradigm of the Roman Empire, and it may be a radical departure from the modern Christendom model for many pastors and other ministry professionals today. However, it seems clear that leadership of a complex adaptive system, like the church, is a multileveled process of collaboration and coordination of gifts and roles carrying out a shared mission, whilst integrating conflict in order to maintain unity.
The leadership Paul desires in the church has parallels in current leadership theory including servant leadership (Greenleaf 1970; 1977; McGhee Cooper & Trammel 2002; Spears & Lawrence 2002), transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass 1994; Burns 1978) and followership (Chaleff 1995; Kellerman 2008; Kelley 1988; 1992) These approaches use a systems lens, focus on the reciprocal interactions between leaders and followers, within the leadership process, and emphasise the methodological aspect of leadership rather than the sole-functioning leader.
The ideas of Mary Parker Follett, dub the 'prophet of management' by Peter Drucker (1995:1), and use language that reflects that of Paul in his letters to the churches at Ephesus and Corinth. As a writer and thinker in the 1920s, she was a contemporary of Allen (1912), whose pioneering work is cited in the introduction. Follett would have agreed with Allen on at least three points, namely 'paternalistic' oversight was limiting the church, organisations thrive when they are free to accomplish their designed purpose, and the power (Spirit) of that purpose can be trusted to shape and grow the church.
Follett (1949:59) observes and writes about the presence of multiple leaders at all levels of an organisation. She emphasises the function of leadership as more important than the leader and position within an organisation. The function of leadership was to release 'creative energies' throughout the organisation. Follett (1949:58) seeks to debunk the myth that leaders were born, placing her amongst a group of 'post-heroic' leadership theorists, possibly the original. She believes that the idea of a singular leader at the top of an organisation was losing its value because a single leader could not carry out all of the leadership functions.
Follett (1924:56) describes leadership as a reciprocal influence process between leaders, followers, and the context, what she named the total situation which was always evolving. Much like Paul, hers was an organisational-level construct, a collective process that created networks for communication and action. The power of leadership resided in the organisation's ability to integrate all of the demands, abilities and needs of the situation. Effective leadership created unity, coherence, individual freedom and efficacy, organisational growth, leaders out of followers and ultimately progress for society - a common good (Martin 2008:312-316). 'Creating integrative unities' was the primary function of leadership and involved organising and coordinating all of the conflicting diverse forces or powers within an organisation.
The leadership function located the 'unifying thread' within the competing ideas and demands. Leadership created a shared control and generated power for the entire organisation. Follett (1924:188-189) calls this 'power-with' distinguishing it from the more traditional 'power-over'. Leadership was about a 'we-power' (Martin 2008:314), the power of the group together, diverse, conflicting yet integrating, generating new values, solutions and power for progress. The primary functions of the executive leader were to grow power and release the energies of the people and resources in the organisation so that they could carry out the common purpose. Although the word empowerment was rarely used in her day, Howard (1998:203) describes Follett as 'empowerment's most explicit ancestor' and her concepts of growing and releasing power amongst the people are at the core of the model's depiction of the pastor as an 'enabling function'.
The final parallel between the kind of leadership that Paul calls for and the kind of leadership Follett wrote about is captured in Follett's unique construct of the invisible leader (Metcalf & Urwick 1941:287). Through this line of reasoning, the invisible leader was synonymous with the common purpose. She observed that it was the purpose that generated loyalty and power, not an external force nor the influence of a single leader. She asserted that the charisma generated from the common purpose was more magnetic and enduring than the charisma of a person. Leaders and followers were both following the invisible leader, the common purpose, creating a strong dynamic union. The invisible leader generated power and guided the efforts of the whole. This kind of pull, an invisible force that empowers and keeps the group together would be an apt description of the Spirit in Paul's writings
It is the Spirit that ultimately gifts, empowers and holds the fledgling groups of believers together. All of the believers are in a partnership of following Christ, the invisible leader. To tie back to complex adaptive systems, the invisible leader is very similar to the construct of the strange attractor of meaning (Burns 2002; Marion & Uhl-Bien 2001; Regine & Lewin 2000; Schneider & Somers 2006; Uhl-Bien Marion & McKelvey 2007; Wheatley 1998) in that it draws people to the group and at the same time generates power and loyalty necessary for prolonged action. The common purpose is what drives the leadership of the church, in particular, leadership that seeks to enable all members to be engaged in the mission.
In an attempt to answer Osei-Mensah's original question (How do we develop orthopraxy leaders?), the new kind of leadership training must be one that de-emphasises professionalism and emphasises missionary. That is to say, leaders must lead with the missio Dei in mind as had been indicated earlier. Perhaps it is best to start with a cursory analysis of terms. One must be cautious when analysing biblical terminology that eisegesis [reading into the text] does not occur. To simply assume that words always mean what they always meant may be to commit an exegetical fallacy (Barrick 2008). Being cognisant of that reality, we therefore tread carefully through a brief analysis of the biblical terms that are most often translated into the English text as lead, leader, leadership, et cetera.
There are a number of words used to describe the concept of leadership in the Old Testament (OT). However, it is important to note that many of these words describe the literal action of leading and do not give insight into the process and development thereof. For example the word (yad) is the primary root word from which the other terms are derived. In addition to being translated as leadership in Numbers 33:1 it is also translated as (numbers in brackets indicate the number of times it is used in the OT): direction (10), hand (859), hands (303), means (3), ordain (4), place (4), possession (4) and power (44) (Thomas 1998).
There are also several nuanced words that are used to describe an action of some kind (Thomas 1998), such as 'leading up the mountain' or 'brought up from the wilderness'. Such words include (alah) (Ex 33:15) and (yatsah) (Is 40:26). However, the one Hebrew word that gives us much insight into the ancient understanding of the idea is contained in the word (naga) . This word is primarily translated as lead or guide although it is used in other synonymous ways as well (Thomas 1998).
is used the most in the book of Psalms, 21 times in all. Most of these references speak of God's leadership to humankind -especially in times of need. They speak of leadership as being essentially destination oriented. A follower is led from where they are to where they need to be. In the Psalms, this includes being led to: still waters (23:2), paths of righteousness (23:3), truth (25:5), a level path (27:11), the Rock (61:2), the way everlasting (139:10). It is important to note that the Psalms are poetic literature and thus the meaning is often couched within metaphors. However, it is clear that the follower is seeking direction from the leader. The leader is one who helps them see perspective (139:10), find a better way (43:3; 60:9) and ultimately assists them in their life purpose (23:2-3). As Williams and McKibben suggest (1994:247), the shepherd does not drive the sheep but leads them. The implication is that the process is directed at the wellbeing of the 'sheep' and not the shepherd. It is others-centred. Whilst this picture does not provide us with a complete analysis of the biblical imagery of leadership (or even the OT) it does provide a useful analogy for the leadership approach advocated for by the authors.
As with the OT, the New Testament also has a number of words that are used to describe the process and action of leadership. The most common usage comes via the use of the prepositional phrase marker (eis) εις literally translated as into. This is often manifested as the phrase 'leading into' or 'leads to' describing the result of a certain action. Similar usage is found for words like (eimi) ειμί and (pros) πρός. Of the remaining words such as: (protos) πρώτος, (odeigeo) όδηγέω, and (apago) απάγω, the usage denotes the position of leadership or the physical act. Interesting, the word that speaks most to the direct result of leadership - thus giving insight as to how it was understood - is the word (planao) πλανάω. This word is only used to describe a negative effect -that of a person being led in the wrong direction (Mt 24:1, 4, 5; Mk 13:5; Jn 7:12). Additionally, this word is used exclusively in the Gospels, and in all but one occurrence is used only by Jesus himself.
As we saw with the OT usage (especially in Psalms), πλανάω is destination oriented. In this case, the follower needs to take care as to how he is being led and where he is being led to. Jesus cautions (see above) several times against being led 'astray'. The phrase 'lead you astray' is the essence of πλανάω. This indicates the effects of negative leadership as well. It speaks to the responsibility and culpability of the leadership role. In a world where many aspire to be a leader -at least positionally - perhaps it would serve as a sobering reminder that when taken lightly, executed poorly or abused egotistically, such leaders can do unforgivable harm to their followers. This kind of leadership has been labelled as 'coercive' (Williams & McKibben 1994:201) and is described as manipulative and controlling. The motivation in leading is power and the goal is control. This is neither biblical nor particularly helpful - but maybe all too common. Perhaps it is no surprise that the type of people most appraised by this term in the New Testament is the 'false prophets'.
It would seem as though whilst leadership may be directive, it need not be coercive (Clinton 1988) but rather participative. That is, the idea of community must be at the heart of mentoring methodology. The word community is perhaps over-used today, but is an apt description of the Trinity. Within the concept of the Trinity, one can begin to understand the posture of mentoring referred to in the Scriptures. Indeed, for the Christian, the truest form of community exists in the theological inference of the Trinity. It is an inference simply because the word trinity does not appear in the biblical text. The texts, however, are laden with the idea of a trinitarian relationship when they describe the self-revelation of God. In fact, it may be argued that an intimate understanding of the Trinity, of God's being as essentially one of being in community, is what allows human beings to more fully grasp the nature of God, as opposed to an often convoluted doctrinal treatise that one must appropriate in the name of orthodoxy.
God's nature is thus therefore best understood as a 'community of persons' (Cartledge 2006:143; Grenz 1994:60). God's being is a community of equal members working together in a seamless synergy accomplishing the will of the Three-in-one in perfect harmony. At times, this relationship has been likened to a 'dance' (Baker-Trinity 2012:12) loosely coming from the Greek parichoresis meaning to 'dance around' or to put it more obtusely 'interpenetration'. McLaren puts it this way: 'each person exists in dynamic social relationship with the others, and God is the relational unity in which they relate' (McLaren 2012:56).
This is not easily understood or appropriated, but once it is, it has profound effects on how we see the community of the church and by extension, its academies. God exists ontologically in triune community, and the leaders of God's people ought thus to reflect such communal-mindedness in the way that they relate to one another and carry out the work of the kingdom. Hess (2005:7) refers to the idea of communal-mindedness or communal knowing as 'treasures in jars of clay'. Building from the biblical metaphor and expanding the meaning into education, she indicates that as members of the community of God, we have latent capacity that ought to be recognised and effective leaders desire to see fulfilled. If our leadership grid includes a healthy view of the triune God and understands the practical ramifications of this doctrine as well, this may orient church leaders to be more effective in leading the complex adaptive system known as the church.
People use the word community today to speak of nations, tribes, systems and most recently and prolifically, to describe various kinds of social media. The church is also a type of community, a community of faith. These communities of believers, like all communities, have certain boundaries that define who is in or out. In many churches today, people undergo a process whereby they become members of a particular church, which may include classes, assurance of salvation testimonies, and baptism. These formal processes emphasise the individual believer. Although the Early Church had a method to know who was in their community -'The Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved' (Ac 2:47 and cf. 2:41; 6:7) - there is little detail regarding their methods.
Some have indicated that Paul's conception of the church (1 Cor 12:12-27) was a 'body of interdependent believers, all of whom contribute to the functioning of the whole' (Grenz 1994:544). The concept of an independent or self-sufficient Christian would have been preposterous to Paul. To illustrate, it was a very serious matter to expel a member from the community of faith, as Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 5:13. In contrast, today members are often struck from the rolls' in certain instances for administrative accuracy and possibly to boost percentage of active members. For Paul it seems clear that isolation from this community resulted in profound existential and relational consequences, and therefore, required a specific process. For Paul, the community requires unity which is in turn a characteristic of the triune God.
If the nature of the church is to reflect God's communal nature, then it stands to reason that training for leadership of the church would include serious consideration of what it means to lead a community. At the core, mentoring is a communal relationship and would be a fitting method to train church leaders to lead within the context of a community of faith. With mentorship added, theological education becomes more than passing on a body of knowledge (experiential or otherwise), to include learning how to be in partnership with God together, in community, and what this together-with-God type of communal leadership entails. Research suggests that mentor relationships often prove beneficial to all parties involved (Wilson & Johnson 2001:122) and can often prove crucial to future success. Therefore the concern and theories posited in this article are of critical importance.
How do we get there? A new model of leadership and leadership training
As the Father, Son and Spirit work together in trinitarian synergy, so we ought to model the same in our communities of faith. Note the apostle Paul's specific use of the plural you in his letters (especially in Phlp 3:17 and 2 Th 3:9). Indeed, 1 Thessalonians 1:7 is particularly enlightening. In this passage Paul refers to the church as a whole when he writes, 'and so you have become a model ...' In this passage Paul expands the meaning of the noun τύπος to example, model or pattern (Kittel et al. 1964), rather than the weaker meaning of impression (Jn 20:25). Paul writes:
You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. 7 And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. (1 Th 1:6-7)
The idea here is, as the community modelled (imitators from the Koine Greek μιμέομαι) themselves after Paul and God, so they too became models for others - all of which is done in love (joy) with each other and for each other. It is our contention that good mentorship is done with the above theological understanding in mind. Isolated, top-down, instruction-laden approaches that characterise at least some theological educational programs today (as we have discussed above) contradict this biblical motif. To take the focus off the 'autonomous individual' and to shift to thinking 'collectively' presupposes a level of care and concern for a person that mirrors our concern for self. It is to 'love your neighbour as you love yourself' (Mt 22:39) and it is profoundly Trinitarian. At the heart of it all is love, a point well made by Wright (2009):
For Christians it's always a love game: God's love for the world calling out an answering love from us, enabling us to discover that God not only happens to love us (as though this was simply one aspect of his character) but that he is love itself. (p. 118)
How do we get there?
It is our assertion that mentorship must exemplify and model (τύπος) community and interdependency, not individualism and independency. In Sanders' (1984) classic work on the subject of Paul as a mentor, the 'community' paradigm we mention above comes to the fore. Sanders (1984:179) states: 'Paul's method of preparing Timothy for his lifework was deeply instructive ... He poured his own personality and convictions into Timothy, and was prepared to spend much time with him.'
During his protégé's fledgling career Paul bestowed much useful advice to Timothy (1 Tm 6:13-15; 20-21; 4:1-2) but it was his posture towards Timothy that displayed the paradigm of which we speak. We quote Sanders (1984) again when he states:
Paul assigned Timothy tasks far above his conscious ability, but encouraged and fortified him in their execution ... a great deal of Timothy's training was received on the job as he traveled with Paul - a unique privilege for so young man. (p. 180)
Paul not only gave Timothy tasks to accomplish, but also allowed him to participate in life together, and therewith to observe his mentor's flaws and strengths. Earlier in this article, we have alluded to the fact that this sort of community-driven (missional) mentorship is lacking in the church and is lacking in theological education paradigms as well.
We have seen that leadership is a biblical concept. We have seen that the concern of the leader as exemplified in the 'shepherd/sheep' motif of Psalm 23, is towards the wellbeing of the protégé. This is also seen in the example of the trinitarian God, who as a perfect exemplar of community leads us on God's mission as a church (Wright 2006). Additionally, we see the life of the apostle Paul who exemplified the 'enabling factor' as described in Figure 1, earlier in this article, in his dealings with his own protégés as well as in his concept of the community of the church as a whole, best embodied in his imagery of 1 Corinthians 12.
In the context of the missio Dei, Paul organically fostered the growth not only of churches as complex adaptive systems but also the leaders of those churches as complex adaptive leaders. This could not be accomplished by replicating himself, but through wise and careful mentoring, allowed the protégé to develop the skills needed for the task in situ. In the North American context prevailing MTIs, in partnership with local churches, might better prepare leaders through the addition of more leadership development courses and the addition of a mentoring process that continues long after the trainee leaves the MTI. This type of training process is represented in Figure 2 ('A proposed model of local church leadership training').
This article seeks to develop a framework from which a new leadership development paradigm can emerge for church leadership. Given the rapid attrition of church leaders, it seems imperative that the church attempt to find new models to equip those who possess a Christian worldview to effectively navigate the challenges inherent in church leadership in the 21st century. The model presented in Figure 2 ('A proposed model of local church leadership training') illustrates the path through which an emerging church leader can develop into an empowered leader who can sustain in leadership roles within the church. This article proposes that new church leaders equip themselves as follows:
• Obtain a firm understanding of theology through formal educational outlets.
• Focus on their own development through internships and entry-level ministry work.
• Continue to enhance their Christian worldview as a dyadic learning process that incorporates both mission and professionalism.
• Pursue knowledge of current leadership and systems thinking literature.
• Embrace both formal and informal mentorship opportunities as they progress in their ministry career.
The leadership development framework presented in this article creates an opportunity for empirical testing and is supported by literature. By replicating previous research in the new context of church leadership, this model can be tested and adapted in a manner that allows for optimal leadership development for emerging church leaders.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
R.E. (North-West University, University of Ontario and University of Ontario Institute of Technology) drafted the original framework of the article using the leadership model designed and developed for a presentation at the 15th International Leadership Association in San Diego, by Prof. L.B. R.E. also served as lead author on this project and implemented Osmer's heuristic as the guiding framework for the research, and drafted the sections on missional leadership. D.M. (Summit University) developed the section on mentorship and missional leadership. J.M. refined the sections relating to leadership as enabling function, as well as synthesised the contents of the article into a brief and focused conclusion. S.S.M. developed the material on systems, complexity and M.P.F.
Allen, R., 2006, Missionary methods - St Paul's or ours?, Lutterworth, Cambridge. [ Links ]
April, K., Macdonald R. & Vriesendorp, S., 2008, Rethinking leadership, University of Cape Town Press, Cape Town. [ Links ]
Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (eds.), 1994, Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks. [ Links ]
Baker-Trinity, J., 2012, 'A hymn reflection on "Come, join the dance of Trinity" by Richard Leach', Cross Accent 20(2), 11-13. [ Links ]
Banks, R., 1999, Re-envisioning theological education: Exploring a missional alternative to current models, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Barrick, W., 2008, Exegeticalfallacies, The Master's Seminary Journal, Sun Valley. [ Links ]
Bellinger, G., 2004, Systems: A journey along the way, viewed n.d., from http://www.systems-thinking.org/systems/systems.htm [ Links ]
Bérard, J., 2013, Accelerating leadership development: Practical solutions for building your organization's potential, Wiley, Mississuaga. [ Links ]
Biehl, B. 1996, Mentoring: Confidence in finding and becoming one, Broadman & Holman, Nashville. [ Links ]
Booysen, L., 2014, 'Leader as enabling function', Paper presented at the 15th ILA in San Diego. [ Links ]
Brady, C. & Woodward, O., 2005, Launching a leadership revolution: Developing yourself and others through the art and science of leadership, Obstacles Press, Flint. [ Links ]
Bridges, C., 2009, Managing transitions: Making the most of change, 3rd edn., De Capo Press, Philadelphia. [ Links ]
Burns, J.M., 1978, Leadership, Free Press, New York. [ Links ]
Burns, J.S., 2002, 'Chaos theory and leadership studies: Exploring unchartered seas', Journal of Organizational and Leaderhip Studies 9(2), 42-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900204 [ Links ]
Burton, S., 1998, Disciple mentoring: Theological education by extension, Carey, Pasadena. [ Links ]
Cartledge, M.J., 2006, 'Empirical-theologoical models of the Trinity: Exploring the beliefs of theology students in the United Kindom, Journal of Empirical Theology 19(2), 137-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157092506778884526 [ Links ]
Chaleff, I., 1995, The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders, 2nd edn., Berrett-Kouhler, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Clinton, J., 1988, The making of a leader, NavPress, Colorado Springs. [ Links ]
Conger, J.A., 1989, The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Day, D.V. & Harrison, M.M., 2007, 'A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development', Human Resource Management Review 17(4), 360-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007 [ Links ]
Drucker, P.F., 1995, 'Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of management', in P. Graham (ed.), Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of management - A celebration of writings from the 1920s, pp. 1-10, Harvard Business, Boston. [ Links ]
Elkington, R.L. & Lotter, G.A., 2013, 'Adversity in pastoral leadership: Are pastors leaving the ministry in record numbers, and if so, why?', Verbum et Ecclesia 34(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v34i1.821 [ Links ]
Engstrom, T., 1976, The making of a Christian leader, Zondervan, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Fleming, D., 2004, Leadership wisdom from unlikely voices, Zondervan, El Cajon. [ Links ]
Follett, M.P., 1924, Creative experience, Longmans & Green, New York. [ Links ]
Follett, M.P., 1949, Freedom & co-ordination: Lectures in business organization, L. Urwick (ed.), Management Publications, London. [ Links ]
Frost, M., 2006, Exiles: Living missionally in a post-Christian culture, Baker Books, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Greenleaf, R.K., 1970, The servant as leader, Robert K. Greenleaf Center, Indianapolis. [ Links ]
Greenleaf, R.K., 1977, Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness, Paulist Press, New York. [ Links ]
Greenleaf, R.K., 2004, 'Who is the servant leader', in L.C. Spears & M. Lawrence (eds.), Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness, pp. 1-7, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Grenz, S., 1994, Theology for the community of God, Broadman & Holman, Nashville. [ Links ]
Hedlund, R.E., 1991, The mission of the church in the world: A biblical theology, Baker Books, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Herrington, J., Bonem, M. & Furr, J.H., 2000, Leading congregational change, Wiley, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Hess, M., 2005, Engaging technology is theological education, Rowman & Littlefield, Oxford. [ Links ]
Higgins, M.C., Chandler, D.E. & Kram, K.E., 2005, 'Developmental initiation and developmental networks', in B.R. Ragins & K.E. Kram (eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research and practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks. [ Links ]
Hirsch, A., 2006, The forgotten ways: Reactivating the missional church, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Howard, A., 1998, 'The empowering leader: Unrealized opportunities', in G.R. Hickman (ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives of a new era, pp. 203-213, Sage, Thousand Oaks. [ Links ]
Huizing, R., 2011, 'Leaders from disciples: The church's contribution to leadership development', Evangelical Review of Theology 2(2), 333-344. doi: 10.1080/194225309031137921. [ Links ]
Jost, J., 2003, 'External and internal complexity of complex adaptive systems', viewed 10 June 2015, from http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/03-12-070.pdf. [ Links ]
Kellerman, B., 2008, Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders, Harvard Business Press, Boston. [ Links ]
Kelley, R.E., 1988, 'In praise of followers', Harvard Business Review 66(6), 321-341. [ Links ]
Kelley, R.E., 1992, The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow, and followers who lead themselves, Doubleday, New York. [ Links ]
Kistemaker, S., 1996, Exposition of Thessalonians, the pastorals, and Hebrews, Baker Books, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Kittel, L.G., Bromiley, G.W. & Friedrich, G. (ed.), 1964, Theological dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 8, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Koch, A. & Van Brakel, P.A., 2010, Blended learning in South African undergraduate classrooms: Directives for the effective use of a learning management system, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on World Wide Web Applications, Durban, 21-23 September 2010. [ Links ]
Kotter, J., 1996, Leading change, Harvard University Press, Boston. [ Links ]
Lichtenstein, B.B., Uhl-Bien, M. Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton., J.D. & Schreiber, C., 2006, Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems, University of Nebraska Management Department Faculty Publications, Nebraska. [ Links ]
Lotter, G.A., 2008, 'E-mentoring as virtual replacement of traditional mentoring', North-West University, Potchefstroom. [ Links ]
Lundy, J.D., 2002, Servant leadership for slow learners, Authentic Lifestyle Publishers, Waynesboro. [ Links ]
MacIlvaine, R., 2009, 'Selected case studies in how senior leaders cultivate missional change in contemporary churches', Faculty of Theology, DMin dissertation, University of Dallas, Dallas. [ Links ]
Martin, S., 2008, 'Content analysis of the writings of Mary Parker Follett', in K. Klenke (ed.), Qualitative research in the study of leadership, pp. 289-316, Emerald, Bingley. [ Links ]
McGhee Cooper, A. & Trammel, D., 2002, 'From hero-as-leader to servant-as-leader, in L.C. Spears & M. Lawrence (eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the 21st century, pp. 141-152, Wiley, New York. [ Links ]
McKenna, R., Yost, P. & Boyd, T., 2007, 'Leadership development and clergy understanding: The events and lessons that shape pastoral leaders, Journal of Psychology and Theology 35, 179-189. [ Links ]
Metcalf, H.C. & Urwick, L. (eds.), 1941, Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett, Harper, New York. [ Links ]
Naude, P., 2004, 'Is there a future for scholarship?' Journal of Theology for South Africa, 119, 4-5. [ Links ]
Northouse, P., 2013, Leadership theory and practice, 6th edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks. [ Links ]
Ogden, G. & Meyer, P., 2007, Leadership essentials: Shaping vision, multiplying influence, defining character, InterVarsity, Downers Grove. [ Links ]
Osei-Mensah, G., 1990, Wanted: Servant leaders, African Christian Press, Accra. [ Links ]
Osmer, R.R., 2008, Practical theology: An introduction, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Osmer, R.R., 2010, 'Practical Theology: A current international perspective', Paper delivered as part of the Annual Conference for the Society for Practical Theology in South Africa, January 2010, Pretoria. [ Links ]
Plueddemann, J., 2009, Leading across cultures, InterVarsity Academic, Downers Grove. [ Links ]
Prime, D.J. & Begg, A., 2004, On being a pastor: Understanding our calling and work, Moody, Chicago. [ Links ]
Rendle, G.R., 2002, Leading change in the congregation: Spiritual and organizational tools for leaders, Alban Institute, Durham. [ Links ]
Rood, G., Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A. & Odendaal, A., 2009, Organizational behaviour: Global and Southern Africa perspectives, Pearson Education South Africa, Pinelands. [ Links ]
Roxburgh, A. & Romanuk, F., 2006, The missional leader: Equipping your church to reach a changing world, Josey Bass, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Sanders, J., 1984, Paul the leader, NavPress, Colorado. [ Links ]
Schneider, M. & Somers, M., 2006, 'Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory for leadership research', The Leadership Quarterly 17(4), 351-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jJeaqua.2006.04.006 [ Links ]
Senge, P., 2006, The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization, Doubleday Currency Book, New York [ Links ]
Spears, L.C. & Lawrence, M., 2002, Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the 21st century, Wiley, New York. [ Links ]
Spears, L.C. & Lawrence, M., 2004, Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Stetzer, E., 2006, Planting missional churches: Planting a church that's biblically sound and reaching people in the culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Stetzer, E. & Bird, W., 2010, Viral churches, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Thomas, R.L., 1998, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, updated edn., Foundation Publications, Anaheim. [ Links ]
Tilstra, K., Freed, S. & Baumgartner, E., 2011, 'Growing creative leaders: A multiple case study', Applied Christian Leadership 5(1), 43-68. [ Links ]
Uhlh-Bien, M., Marion, R. & McKelvey, B., 2007, 'Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era', The Leadership Quarterly 18(4), 298-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.10167j.leaqua.2007.04.002 [ Links ]
Van der Walt, B.J., 2006, When African and western cultures meet: From confrontation to appreciation, ICCA, Potchefstroom. [ Links ]
Walvoord, J.F. & Zuck, R.B. (eds.), 1985, The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the Scriptures, Victor Books, Wheaton. [ Links ]
West, G., 2004, 'Beyond the critical curtain: Community based service learning in an African context', Teaching Theology and Religion, 7(2), 71-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9647.2004.t01-1-00195.x [ Links ]
Wheatley, M.J., 1998, Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe, 2nd edn., Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Williams, B. & McKibben, M., 1994, Oriented leadership, Orthodox Christian Publications Center, Wayne. [ Links ]
Wilson, P. & Johnson, B., 2001, 'Core virtues for the practice of mentoring', Journal of Psychology and Theology, 2, 121-130. [ Links ]
Wright, C., 2006, The mission of God, InterVarsity Publications Academic, Downers Grove. [ Links ]
Wright, N.T., 2009, Simply Christian, Harper Collins, San Francisco. [ Links ]
Lady May Drive 113, Whitby
ON, L1R-3M5, Canada
Received: 02 Dec. 2014
Accepted: 04 May 2015
Published: 13 July 2015